Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

On the topic of isolation, I would suggest that you
1) remove the current text related to isolation
2) figure out what it is that is observable and well-defined
3) figure out a name for that, and propose the name and definition

I presume that this addition will require discussion among the design 
team, since it would be a significant change to the document.  Or it 
could be proposed in a separate document for now.

Separately, I suggest a similar approach to the current resolution text, 
as it does not make sense as written.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/28/2020 11:36 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> Hi, All,
> 
> Agree on we have multiple kinds of isolations, and we may need to 
> differentiate them. It reminds me in some previous discussions we may 
> separate the isolation from the user side and from the network side.
> 
> Isolation at the user side: just indicate the demand about a 
> comprehensive performance from the user. For example, when requesting a 
> transport slice, request some isolation if the user is sensitive to 
> latency (or something similar); or, don’t request any isolation if the 
> user is not sensitive to such parameters.
> 
> Isolation at the network side: how to technically guarantee the 
> isolation (in VPN, etc.), which is already existing as cited in Jie’s  
> email.
> 
> Basically I think we need the ‘isolation at the user side’, but this 
> isolation is different with what is indicated in ‘Isolation at the 
> network side’. We may need better definition on ‘isolation as a part of 
> SLO’, instead of simply removing it.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Haomian
> 
> *发件人:*Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Igor Bryskin
> *发送时间:*2020年4月29日1:52
> *收件人:*Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail]>
> *抄送:*Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *主题:*Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation 
> and resolution
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Flow isolation and network isolation are different things. For example, 
> you do not expect receiving data in one network broadcasted over 
> properly isolated another network. Likewise, you do not expect 
> congestion in one network caused by an activity in another (isolated) 
> network. Om the other hand, flows in the same network may influence on 
> each other.
> 
> Igor
> 
> On Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 12:30:38 PM EDT, Greg Mirsky 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jie,
> 
> thank you for listing the existing cases of isolation term use in IETF 
> RFCs. My understanding of these quotes is that most of them refer to 
> data flow isolation/separation. And that is what Connectivity 
> Verification OAM is intended to monitor. At the same time, as Joel has 
> pointed out, the term isolation is being used in 
> the draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition in a different manner, 
> particularly in Section 4.1.1. In that section, several levels (hard and 
> soft) of the isolation are discussed whereas isolation of data flows, in 
> my understanding, is always "hard". As I've mentioned earlier, we might 
> look for different terms when referring to use/access to underlay 
> resources vs. data flows interaction.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:31 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Joel and Greg,
> 
>     As I mentioned during the virtual meeting, isolation was described
>     as a requirement in several PPVPN requirement and framework RFCs. In
>     summary, isolation is firstly required to avoid unwanted exposure of
>     both data traffic and routing information, then it is also mentioned
>     that isolation is needed to avoid the effects of traffic congestion
>     happened in other VPNs in the network.
> 
>     Just quote some of them:
> 
>     RFC 3809: Generic Requirements for Provider Provisioned Virtual
>     Private Networks (PPVPN)
> 
>     4.4.  Data isolation
> 
>         The PPVPN MUST support forwarding plane isolation.  The network MUST
>         never deliver user data across VPN boundaries unless the two VPNs
>         participate in an intranet or extranet.
> 
>         Furthermore, if the provider network receives signaling or routing
>         information from one VPN, it MUST NOT reveal that information to
>         another VPN unless the two VPNs participate in an intranet or
>         extranet.
> 
> 
>     RFC 4031: Service Requirements for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned
>     Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)
> 
>     4.1.  Isolated Exchange of Data and Routing Information
> 
>         A mechanism must be provided for isolating the distribution of
>         reachability information to only those sites associated with a VPN.
>         ...
>         Note that isolation of forwarded data or exchange of reachability
>         information to only those sites that are part of a VPN may be viewed
>         as a form of security - for example, [Y.1311.1], [MPLSSEC].
> 
>     5.8.  Isolation
> 
>         These features include traffic and routing information exchange
>         isolation, similar to that obtained in VPNs based on Layer 1 and
>         Layer 2 (e.g., private lines, FR, or ATM) [MPLSSEC].
> 
>     6.8.  Isolation of Traffic and Routing
>         ...
>         From a high-level SP perspective, a PE-based L3VPN MUST isolate the
>         exchange of traffic and routing information to only those sites that
>         are authenticated and authorized members of a VPN.
> 
>         In a CE-based VPN, the tunnels that connect the sites effectively
>         meet this isolation requirement if both traffic and routing
>         information flow over the tunnels.
> 
>         An L3VPN solution SHOULD provide a means to meet L3VPN QoS SLA
>         requirements that isolates VPN traffic from the effects of traffic
>         offered by non-VPN customers.  Also, L3VPN solutions SHOULD
>     provide a
>         means to isolate the effects that traffic congestion produced by
>         sites as part of one VPN can have on another VPN.
> 
> 
>     RFC 4110: A Framework for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned Virtual
>     Private Networks (PPVPNs)
> 
>     1.2 Overview of Virtual Private Networks
> 
>         In PE-based layer 3 VPNs, the PE devices may
>         route the VPN traffic based on the customer addresses found in
>     the IP
>         headers; this implies that the PE devices need to maintain a
>     level of
>         isolation between the packets from different customer networks...
>         ...
>         Tunneling is also important for other reasons, such as providing
>         isolation between different customer networks, allowing a wide range
>         of protocols to be carried over an SP network, etc.  Different QoS
>         and security characteristics may be associated with different
>         tunnels.
> 
>     4. 3 VPN Tunneling
> 
>         Another capability optionally provided by tunneling is that of
>         isolation between different VPN traffic flows.  The QoS and security
>         requirements for these traffic flows may differ, and can be met by
>         using different tunnels with the appropriate characteristics.  This
>         allows a provider to offer different service characteristics for
>         traffic in different VPNs, or to subsets of traffic flows within a
>         single VPN.
> 
> 
>     Hope this helps.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Jie
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf..org>] On Behalf Of
>     Joel M. Halpern
>     > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 5:33 AM
>     > To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and
>     > resolution
>     > 
>     > Greg, that definition seems to be a specific subset of VPN.
>     > As far as I can tell, the slice definition does include what endpoints the slice
>     > participants can talk to.  Presumably, with some way to say "the Internet".
>     > So Whether the slice supports communication with the Internet or not is
>     > definitely an observable property.  I would tend not to call it isolation.
>     > Separately, the definition you propose is unrelated to the definition in the
>     > document, Which is why I suggest, for now, removing all discussion of
>     > isolation from the document.
>     > 
>     > Yours,
>     > Joel
>     > 
>     > On 4/27/2020 5:22 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     > > Dear Joel,
>     > > thank you for bringing the matter of "isolation" to the discussion. I
>     > > agree, that it is not practical to expect physical isolation in modern
>     > > networks. In my view, a transport slice that requires isolation is as
>     > > a transport connection that expects to receive data only from the
>     > > specific domain and not from any other domain. In other words, I view
>     > > isolation as the absence of mis-connectivity (in transport network
>     > > interpretation which differentiates between path continuity check and
>     > > connectivity verification). If my interpretation is acceptable, then
>     > > isolation can be monitored using connectivity verification OAM
>     > mechanism(s).
>     > > I much appreciate your thoughts, opinion on the proposed
>     > > interpretation of isolation on transport slice.
>     > >
>     > > Regards,
>     > > Greg
>     > >
>     > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joel Halpern Direct
>     > > <[e-mail] <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern..com>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     > wrote:
>     > >
>     > >     Trimmed, in line.
>     > >     Joel
>     > >
>     > >     On 4/26/2020 11:08 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>     > >      > Hi Joel,
>     > >      >
>     > >      > Please see some replies inline:
>     > >      >
>     > >      >> -----Original Message-----
>     > >      >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf..org>>] On Behalf Of
>     Joel M. Halpern
>     > >      >> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:52 AM
>     > >      >> To: Zhenghaomian <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > >      >> Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions -
>     > >     isolation and
>     > >      >> resolution
>     > >      >>
>     > >     ....
>     > >      >> More importantly, it is not something the customer has any way
>     > >     to verify.
>     > >      >> There is no test a customer can run that will verify this.
>     > >      >> Making unverifiable promises is rarely a useful thing to do.
>     > >      >
>     > >      > Totally agree that tools for verification is important. As
>     > >     mentioned in Haomian's mail, isolation can be verified with suitable
>     > >     tools which can be used to collect the information at the necessary
>     > >     places with a suitable interval. And it is important that customers
>     > >     can be provided with such tools to monitor the performance and be
>     > >     informed of SLA violation.
>     > >
>     > >     As far as I can tell, the observable that you describe is latency
>     > >     variation (or maybe loss).  Fine, describe the SLO in terms of latency
>     > >     variation  (or loss).  Given that there are always imperfections in
>     > the
>     > >     system, the customer may think that the issue is isolation.  But
>     > >     what he
>     > >     can observe, and as far as I can tell what he cares about, is delay
>     > >     variation, loss, or other factors that affect his traffic.
>     > >
>     > >     To use a different example, I have learned from the advocates to hate
>     > >     bufferbloat.  But even their tests measure delay, delay variation,
>     > >     etc..
>     > >     They then infer the presence of large buffers.  But in fact, if the
>     > >     large buffers are present but never used, we would all be happy.  So
>     > >     the
>     > >     SLO on this would be in terms of latency, latency variation, loss, etc.
>     > >     Not bufferbloat.`
>     > >
>     > >     Yours,
>     > >     Joel
>     > >
>     > >      >
>     > >      > Best regards,
>     > >      > Jie
>     > >      >
>     > >      >>
>     > >      >> Yours,
>     > >      >> Joel
>     > >      >>
>     > >      >> PS: Note that I understand that operators get asked for odd
>     > >     things mby
>     > >      >> customers.  But if we are going to define standards to support
>     > >     it, we need to
>     > >      >> understand the actual need.
>     > >      >>
>     > >      >> On 4/25/2020 10:44 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
>     > >      >>> Not sure if I understand your question correctly.
>     > >      >>> Well, it's reasonable for people to request hard isolation
>     > >     because 'I don't want
>     > >      >> my data to be transported together with other people's data'.
>     > >      >>> For delivery this can be achieved by separating physical
>     > >     devices/connections,
>     > >      >> which are visible to users. For example dedicated boxes and
>     > >     fibers will guarantee
>     > >      >> the user's data is not mixed with others...
>     > >      >>>
>     > >      >>> Best wishes,
>     > >      >>> Haomian
>     > >      >>>
>     > >      >>> -----邮件原件-----
>     > >      >>> 发件人: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
>     > >      >>> 发送时间: 2020年4月26日10:34
>     > >      >>> 收件人: Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > >      >>> 主题: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions -
>     > >     isolation and
>     > >      >>> resolution
>     > >      >>>
>     > >      >>> (trimmed)
>     > >      >>> What is the user perceivable effect that the user is asking for
>     > >     when you say "if
>     > >      >> the user requests isolation"?
>     > >      >>>
>     > >      >>> Yours,
>     > >      >>> Joel
>     > >      >>>
>     > >      >>> On 4/25/2020 10:31 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
>     > >      >>>> Hi, Kiran, Joel,
>     > >      >>>>
>     > >      >>> ...
>     > >      >>>> BTW, regarding the isolation, I don't see the necessity to
>     > >     argue whether it
>     > >      >> should be in SLO or not. The isolation itself, can either be
>     > >     requested by the user
>     > >      >> of the transport slice (then from NBI of TSC) to express the
>     > >     demand of reliability,
>     > >      >> or be offered by the provider of the transport slice (then from
>     > >     the SBI of TSC) to
>     > >      >> achieve the SLO requested from the user. In other words, if the
>     > >     user requests
>     > >      >> certain level of isolation in an SLO, such isolation should be
>     > >     provided; if the user
>     > >      >> does not request certain level of isolation (no isolation
>     > >     request in SLO), then
>     > >      >> there may be some isolation provided to satisfy the user's
>     > request.
>     > >      >>>>
>     > >      >>>> Best wishes,
>     > >      >>>> Haomian
>     > >      >>
>     > >      >> _______________________________________________
>     > >      >> Teas mailing list
>     > >      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > >      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     > >
>     > >     _______________________________________________
>     > >     Teas mailing list
>     > >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > >     https://www.ietf..org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > Teas mailing list
>     > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     > >
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Teas mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>